E) Otros Beneficios.
2.3.23 Resocialización como Fin de la Pena
As mentioned in Chapter 2, Schwartz and BUsky (1987, 1990) extended Rokeach’s (1973) work both conceptuaUy and methodologicaUy. They defined values as transituational concepts that can be classified on three fecets. First, the goal types; values may be terminal or instrumental goals. Second, the interest types: values may serve individualistic, coUective, or both types of interests. Third, the content types: value contents can be classified into eight types. Subsequently, Schwartz (1992) developed this theory further by expanding the number of content types to ten (which are power, achievement, hedonism.
152
stimulation, self-direction, universalisai, benevolence, conformity, tradition, and security), by sharpening some of the definitions of these content types, and by specifying the sets of values that comprised each content type.
In addition, they hypothesize a circular structure of the content types. The content types that serve primarily individual interests form a contiguous region opposed to another contiguous region formed by the content types that serve primarily collective interests. The content types that serve both types of interest are therefore hypothesized to be located on the boundaries between these two regions. They also assume that increasing distance around the circular order indicates decreasing conqiatibüity and greater conflict. Therefore, the adjacent content types are postulated to be most compatible, and the actions taken simultaneously in pursuit of different values fi'om the adjacent content types may be most conqiatible with each other. The content types that emerge in opposing directions fi'om the origin are postulated to be in greatest conflict, and the actions taken simultaneously in pursuit o f different values fi'om these types may come into greatest conflict. The structural arrangement of these content and interest types is presented in Figure 6.2. BOTH UNIVERSALISM B E N E V O L E N C E SELF-DIRECTION C O N F O R M I T Y STIMULATION H E D O N I S M SECURITY A C H I E V E M E N T P O W E R BOTH
Figure 6.2 Schwartz's theoretical structure of content and interest types of values (Adapted fiom Schwartz, 1992)
In partcular, Schwartz (1992) assumed that simultaneous pursuit of values from the following nine sets of types is compatible: (1) power and achievement; (2) achievement and hedonism; (3) hedonism and stimulation (4) stimulation and self-direction; (5) self-direction and universalism; (6) universalism and benevolence; (1) tradition and conformity; (8) conformity and security; and (9) security and power. Also, he assumed thaï simultaneous pursuit of values from the following three sets of types gives rise to conflict : (1) self-directijn and stimulation versus conformity, tradition, and security; (2) universalism and benevolence ve sus achievement and power; and (3) hedonism versus conformity and tradition.
Schwatz and Bilsky have carried out extensive cross-cultural studies (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, 1990; Schwarts 1992) on values, and the results support their statement that the interest types and content structure of vdues are universal. However, like Rokeach (1973), Schwartz and Bilsky defined and measured values as transituational concepts, therefore it cannot be sure that their classifications of the interest types aid structural relations among the content types of transituational values are still held on the relevant values which are used to assess a specified situation. Moreover, because Schwartz and Bilsky's
of
assumptions alout the compatibility of the actions taken in pursuit^yCertain values were based on the structural relatons among the content types of these values, and the structural relations were based on the interest types, if peoples' views on whose interests of the values they pursue in a given situation are different from Schwartz and Bilsky's interest types of these values, their hypotheses about the compatibility of specified seS cf content types may be rejected. In other words, three questions arise from this doubt. (1) Are people' views on the interest types of the relevant values to a given situation consistent with Schwartz's (1992) interest types of these values? (2) Does a value keep the same interest type when it is used to evaluate different aspects of a given situation or different situations? (3) Are the compatible and conflicting relaioas among the content types of the relevant values to a given situation consistent with Schwartz and Bilsky's hypotheses?
To explore the answers to these three questions, the following situation-related hypotheses are developed and will be tested in motivational appraisals of career achievement.
If the universality of Schwartz's (1992) interest types of transituational values can be applied to the activated values, the subjective interest types of most, if not all, of the motive values held by the subjects should be the same as Schwartz's classification, and stay the same when used to evaluate different aspects of career achievement. However, based on the theory (Chapter 1) and empirical data of Study 1 and 2 on the fact that the nature of transituational values is not completely consistent with that of activated values used in valuations, it is expected that:
1. Those motive values of career achievement whose subjective interest types fit Schwartz's classification do not outnumber those motive values of career achievement whose subjective interest types
154
2. It is not the case that among the motive values that are used to evaluate the rewarding and
costiing consequences of career achievement, the interest types of most (at least above 50%) of these motrve values keep the same in the two aspects.
Because the motive values of seeking career achievement may induce compatible approaching actioins toward career achievement, and the motive values of avoiding career achievement may induce compatible avoiding actions away from career achievement, and the actions induced by these two kinds of motive values are in conflict, if Schwartz's (1992) content structure of transituational values can be applied to the motive values, the content types of the same kind of motive values should be compatible with each other, and the content types of the different kind of motive values should be in conflict with each other. However, it is expected that:
3. There is no clear patterns showing that (a) the content types of the motive values of seeking career achievement are compatible with each other, (b) the content types of the motive values of avoiding career achievement are compatible with each other, and (c) each content type of the seeking motive values is in conflict with each content type of the avoiding motive values in Schwartz's (1992) content structure.
To examine whether the interest types and content structure of the motive values of seeking or avoiding career achievement are as Schwartz (1992) suggested, the motive values which fulfil the following two conditions were examined. (1) They were selected by more than 50% of each group members with non-zero possibility scores, so that the values were held as motive values at least by the minimum majority of each group. (2) They appear in the Schwartz Value Survey (Schwartz, 1992). To make the data comparable with Schwartz's classifications of interest types, the responses of 'for whom' of each motive value were classified into three interest types: 'individual' type (for self only), 'collective' type (for others only), and 'both' type (for self and others). Thus, there are three interest types for each motive value. The selection rate of each interest type was computed for each motive value in terms of percentage based on how many persons selected the type among the subjects who selected the value. To determine which interest type was dominant in a motive value, the selection rates of the three interest types were compared. If the highest selection rate was above 50%, the interest t>T5e of the highest selection rate was assigned to the value. If all the three selection rates were below 50%, 'no dominant interest types' was assigned to the value. The assigned dominant interest types and their selection rates of the motive values, and Schwartz’s (1992) transituational classifications of interest and content types of these values are listed in Table 6.11.
The results of Table 6.11 show that Schwartz's interest types of values received only partial support in the situation of career achievement. No value in Table 6.11 was held unanimously (i.e., selection
rate = 100%) as a specified interest type by all the subjects who selected the value across the four groups. Dominant interest types of some motive values were consistent with Schwartz's classification but some were not. The consistent rates of each group are as follows; 48.6% (17/35) for the Taiwanese females, 50% (18/36) for the Taiwanese males, 40% (12/30) for the British females, and 50% (13/26) for the British males. Most interest types that were consistent with Schwartz's are 'individual' type, and the rest are both' type. No value was held as 'collective' type by the majority of each group. These results confirm Hypothesis 1 that the interest types of the motive values on career achievement are not totally as Schwartz suggested.
Within each group, some values, such as 'freedom', 'reciprocation of favours', 'health', and 'family security' in the Taiwanese females, were held as ambivalent motive values which appear as the motive yalues of seeking and avoiding career achievement at the same time. Some of these ambivalent values, iuch as 'fi-eedom', and 'family security* in the Taiwanese females and males, keep the same dominant interest types in both parts of seeking and avoiding motive values. The other ambivalent values, such as 'reciprocation of favours' in the Taiwanese females, 'enjoying life' and 'healthy' in the Taiwanese males, family security' and 'true friendship' in the British females, have one dominant interest type in one part of motive values, but no dominant interest type in another part of motive values. These results confirm Hypothesis 2 that the interest types of some motive values may change when used to evaluate different aspects of career achievement.
To examine the structural relations among content types of the motive values, Schwartz's (1992) classifications of content types for the motive values within each group appearing in Table 6.11 were summarized and arranged according to Schwartz's structure in Table 6.12. Schwartz's structural relations among the content types of values do not receive clear support in the situation of career achievement. Eight out of Schwartz' ten content types appear in the seeking motive values within each group. Inevitably, some conflicting content types assumed by Schwartz, such as ST and SD vs. SE, and PO and AC vs. UN and BE, appeared in the seeking motive values at the same time. Similarly, some assumed conflicting types appeared together in the avoiding motive values, which included SD vs. SE in the Taiwanese groups and the British females, and HE vs. TR in the Taiwanese males. Thus, the content types of the same kind of motive values were not totally compatible with each other. Moreover, most content types that appeared in the avoiding motive values appeared in the seeking motive values as well. Since the same content type is
156 Table 6.11 Dominant Interest Types (Selection Rates > 50%) and Their Selection Rates (%) o f the Motive
Taiwanese Taiwanese British British Schwartz's
females males females males (1992)
Dominant Dominant Dominant Dominant transituational interest Interest Interest Interest Interest Content type % type .. % type % type % type type Motive Values of Seeking Career Achievement
Authority I 76 I 66 — I 85 I PO
Preserving public image I 70 I 58 - — I PO
Social recognition B 59 N N N I PO Wealth B 83 B 90 B 71 B 71 I PO Capable I 71 I 74 I 64 I 72 I AC AnAitious I 73 I 80 — — I AC Influential I 62 1 59 I 66 I 82 I AC Successful N N N I 57 I AC Eryoying life B 56 Nd B* 67 N I HE Varied life I 82 I 64 N I 69 I ST Exciting hfe I 91 I 86 I 57 I 68 I ST
Choosing own goals I 95 I 79 P 83 I 85 I SD
Creativity I 89 I 83 I 69 I 84 I SD Freedom P 89 P 89 P 55 I 73 I SD Self respect I 83 I 83 I 56 I 68 I SD Independent N I 62 N I 74 I SD Inner harmony I 87 I 84 I 64 P 83 B UN Wisdom I 93 I 87 I 55 I 75 B UN World of beauty I 81 I 73 — — B UN Equality — — N N B UN Sense of belonging I 53 I 58 I 60 I 62 B SE Reciprocation of favours Nd N — — B SE Healthy Bs 75 Bd 63 — - B SE Family security B^ 75 B* 63 Bd 58 B 60 B SE Sense of security B 64 B 64 B 60 B 58 B SE Responsible I 55 I 54 N I 63 C BE Spiritual life I 78 I 75 — — C BE Meaning in life I 79 I 89 I 60 I 76
c
BE True friendship N B 53 Nd Nc
BEMotive Values of Avoiding Career Achievement
Enjoying life Id 52 B« 69 — I HE
Freedom P 84 P 87 P 68 — I SD
Choosing own goals — — P 73 — I SD
Inner harmony — — P 91 B UN Family security B® 65 B* 57 Nd — B SE Reciprocation of favours Id 50 N — — B SE Healthy B® 56 Nd B 53 — B SE Loyal N N N N C BE Mature love B 63 B 54 — N
c
BE Honest — — N —c
BE True friendship — — Bd 62 —c
BE Humble I 64 — — —c
TR Moderate — I 71 — —c
TRNote. I = Individual type; C = Collective type; B = Both type; N = No dominant interest type. The values whose interest types are with superscript letters within each group appear in both parts of seeking and avoiding motive values; the superscript *s' denotes the same dominant interest types and the superscript'd' denotes different dominant interest types of these values in the two parts. The symbol ' — ' indicates that the value is not examined for the group because the majority of the group did not hold it as a motive value. AC = achievement; BE = benevolence; HE = hedonism; PO = power; SD = self-direction; SE = security; ST = stimulation; TR = tradition; UN = universalism.
not in conflicting with itself, the content types of the two different kinds of motive values were not exactly in conflict with each other. These results reject the hypotheses derived from Schwartz's theory, and confirm Hypothesis 3 that the relations among the content structure of the motive values of career achievement are not exactly the same as suggested by Schwartz's theory.
The results of Table 6.11 suggest that Schwartz's (1992) assignments of interest type to each content type of values are not suitable to be applied to the relevant values in a specified situation, because they cannot tell whether the subjects' views on the interest type of a value in a given situation would be the same as herXhis assignment to the content type of the value, nor can they tell whether the subjects' views on the interest type of a value would remain the same across situations.
Moreover, values of the same content types were assumed by Schwartz to serve the same type of interest. In doing so, Schwartz pre-excluded the possibility that values of the same content types may serve the different types of interest in valuations of a specified situation. In fact. Table 6.11 shows that values of the same Schwartz's content type were not necessary regarded as serving the same party's interest by some groups. These findings remind researchers not to decide the interest types of values according to their literal meaning without checking subjects' views related to a specified situation. The subjective interest types of most values may be consistent with their meanings, but some of them may be not so. For example, 'enjoying life' was regarded as an individualist value, and 'humble' as a collectivist value by Schwartz (1992) and Triandis et al. (1990), but these two values were viewed as opposite in this study. The Taiwanese and British females viewed 'enjoying life' served interests of both themselves and others, and the Taiwanese and British males had no dominant interest type on this value. On the other hand, the Taiwanese females viewed 'humble' served the individual's interest.
The results of Table 6.12 also question the suitability of applying Schwartz's theory about compatible or conflicting relations among the content types of values in a specified situation. As Table 6.11 shows, both the motive values of seeking and avoiding career achievement contain 'individual' and 'both' interest types held by the majority of subjects. This suggests that whether the relevant values are regarded as the same kind of motive values (in this case the values are compatible with each other), or opposite kind of motive values (in this case the values are conflicting with each other) may not be determined by their interest types, therefore, Schwartz's theory of content structure of values may not be suitable to be applied to the relevant values which are used to appraise a specified situation.
158
Table 6.12 Content Types o f the Motive Vcüues Arrcmged According to Schwartz's Structure
Taiwanese females Taiwanese males British females British males Motive values of seeking career achievement
Motive values of avoiding career achievement
(si)
Note. PO = power; AC = achievement; HE = hedonism; ST = stimulation; SD = self-direction;
UN = universalism; BE = benevolence; TR = tradition; SE = security. Circled content types tqjpear in both the seeking and avoiding motive values within each group.